Lists all Markdown and HTML pages in the wiki, optionally filtered to a subfolder, so AI agents can discover available notes before reading or editing.
Lists all the pages in the wiki (.md/.html files). Optionally accepts a subfolder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subdir | No | Optional relative subfolder. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lists' implies a read, but it does not disclose whether the listing is recursive, whether it includes subfolder contents, output format/ordering, or pagination for large wikis — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the optional scope modifier. Slightly redundant with the schema's subdir description, but nothing extraneous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A simple one-param read tool needs little, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should clarify the return shape (paths, relative vs absolute) and listing depth. It adequately identifies what is listed but leaves the result contract implicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single param is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description merely restates the optional subfolder without adding syntax, path-format, or behavior details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource (lists pages in the wiki) plus the file types involved (.md/.html). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search or read_page, but the enumeration intent is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for enumerating pages, but there is no guidance on when to prefer it over search, nor any note on prerequisites or scope limits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.